Disney had spent vastly more money than he'd planned on "Pinnochio" and "Fantasia", and got little of it back. "Dumbo", next off the rank, was made cheaply, quickly, without fuss. The result is simple but handsome. However handsome "Dumbo" looks, the animation is not very detailed, character design is hardly adventurous, the colours are few but bright, and in an hour it's over. It needn't be more than this, though: the story is far from complicated. It is, I'll admit, a story that has made me cry more than once; and in this instance I don't feel that I've been cheated into crying, because there really is something poignant and heartbreaking about this ugly duckling variant.
Like Hans Andersen, Disney has to pad the outfit a bit to make it fill the space available; yet, with the exception of the introductory bit with the storks, it doesn't feel like padding. In fact the most gratuitous piece of padding is the most necessary. I refer to the pink elephants sequence: a masterpiece of extended unreality (caused by such a tiny quantity of champagne!) which dazzles and sizzles and all but soars out of the screen. It's the sting in Dumbo's tail, and nothing produced since can match its verve.
Like Hans Andersen, Disney has to pad the outfit a bit to make it fill the space available; yet, with the exception of the introductory bit with the storks, it doesn't feel like padding. In fact the most gratuitous piece of padding is the most necessary. I refer to the pink elephants sequence: a masterpiece of extended unreality (caused by such a tiny quantity of champagne!) which dazzles and sizzles and all but soars out of the screen. It's the sting in Dumbo's tail, and nothing produced since can match its verve.